Advertisement

Teaching American Government Content to Students with Developmental Disabilities Using Technology and Constant Time Delay

  • 8 Accesses

Abstract

Instructional technology plays a role in supporting access to and meaningful participation in general education curriculum for students with developmental disabilities in inclusive classrooms. In this study, two 18-year-old students with developmental disabilities received technology-supported instruction to assist with learning the content in their co-taught American government class. Two interventionists (i.e., a special education teacher and a researcher) implemented video modeling and used constant time delay procedures to teach the pictorial sequencing of three social studies topics on an iPad®. As a secondary measure, students verbally explained the picture sequences. Researchers used a multiple probe design across behaviors and replicated across participants. Visual analysis indicated a functional relation between the use of the intervention and the number of correctly sequenced pictures. Limitations and implications for practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Alberto, P. A., Waugh, R. E., Fredrick, L. D., & Davis, D. H. (2013). Sight word literacy: a functional-based approach for identification and comprehension of individual words and connected text. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 332–350.

  2. Alzahrani, T., & Leko, M. (2018). The effects of peer tutoring on the reading comprehension performance of secondary students with disabilities: a systematic review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1302372.

  3. Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691303800401.

  4. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200401.

  5. Browder, D. M., Root, J. R., Wood, L., & Allison, C. (2017). Effects of a story-mapping procedure using the iPad on the comprehension of narrative texts by students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32, 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615611387.

  6. Burton, C. E., Anderson, D. H., Prater, M. A., & Dyches, T. T. (2013). Video self-modeling on an iPad® to teach functional math topics to adolescents with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28, 76–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357613478829.

  7. Catania, C. N., Almeida, D., Liu-Constant, B., & Reed, F. D. D. (2009). Video modeling to train staff to implement discrete-trial instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 387–392.

  8. Coleman, M. B., Cherry, R. A., Moore, T. C., Park, Y., & Cihak, D. F. (2015). Teaching sight words to elementary students with intellectual disability and autism: a comparison of teacher-directed versus computer-assisted simultaneous prompting. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53, 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-53.3.196.

  9. Douglas, K. H., Wojcik, B. W., & Thompson, J. R. (2012). Is there an app for that? Journal of Special Education Technology, 27(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341202700206.

  10. Dynamic Learning Maps. (2017). Retrieved from http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/about/tests#parents

  11. Evmenova, A. S., Graff, H. J., & Behrmann, M. M. (2015). Providing access to academic content for high-school students with significant intellectual disability through interactive videos. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615609307.

  12. Flipped Learning Network. (2014). The four pillars of FLIPTM. Retrieved from www.flippedlearning.org/definition

  13. Gast, D. L., & Ledford, L. R. (2014). Single case research methodology: Application in special education and behavioral science. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203521892.

  14. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003.

  15. Hua, Y., Woods-Groves, S., Kaldenberg, E. R., & Scheidecker, B. J. (2013). Effects of vocabulary instruction using constant time delay on expository reading of young adults with intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357613477473.

  16. Hudson, M. E., Browder, D. M., & Wood, L. A. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807046926.

  17. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

  18. Jameson, J. M., Thompson, V., Manuele, G., Smith, D., Egan, H., & Moore, T. (2012). Using an iTouch to teach core curriculum words and definitions: Efficacy and social validity. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341202700304.

  19. Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800303.

  20. Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., & Kerbel, A. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81, 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563697.

  21. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of SMART board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0361-9.

  22. Pennington, R. C., Collins, B. C., Stenhoff, D. M., Turner, K., & Gunselman, K. (2014). Using simultaneous prompting and computer-assisted instruction to teach narrative writing skills to students with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 396–414.

  23. Smith, B. R., Schuster, J. W., Collins, B., & Kleinert, H. (2011). Using simultaneous prompting to teach restaurant words and classifications as non-target information to secondary students with moderate to severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 251–266.

  24. Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jiménez, B., & DiBiase, W. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.62.

  25. Spooner, F., Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith, B. R. (2012). Evidence-based practice for teaching academics to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511421634.

  26. Walker, A. R., Uphold, N. M., Richter, S., & Test, D. W. (2010). Review of the literature on community-based instruction across grade levels. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 242–267.

  27. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children: Fourth edition (WISC-IV) [Assessment instrument]. San Antonio: Pearson. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15174-000.

  28. Yakubova, G., Hughes, E. M., & Hornberger, E. (2015). Video-based intervention in teaching fraction problem-solving to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 2865–2875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2449-y.

  29. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Allison M. Kroesch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All participants and parents/legal guardians signed an informed consent form.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kroesch, A.M., Douglas, K.H., Jozwik, S. et al. Teaching American Government Content to Students with Developmental Disabilities Using Technology and Constant Time Delay. J Dev Phys Disabil (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09726-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Academic skills
  • Constant time delay
  • Developmental disabilities
  • High school students
  • Mobile technologies
  • Tablet-based intervention
  • Video modeling